New Rules Being Considered for 2019

[ModebaSan]

The NCAA men's basketball rules committee offered up a proposal on Friday that, if passed, would extend the 3-point line more than a foot deeper than its current positioning.
The rule would move the line back from 20 feet, 9 inches feet to 22-1¾, the same measurement used in international play and in the WNBA. The 20.75 feet in NCAA men's basketball has been in place since 2007, while the same distance has been in place for the women's side since its passing in 2011.
There has been measures taken by the NCAA to gauge the success of such a change in recent years if it were to pass. In the 2018 and 2019 NIT Tournament, one of many experimental rules was the deepening of the 3-point line to the international distance. Results from the 2019 NIT experiment showed teams took more 3-point shots and shot a slightly lower percentage compared to their regular-season averages.
"After gathering information over the last two seasons, we feel it's time to make the change," said Tad Boyle, committee chair and coach at Colorado. "Freedom of movement in the game remains important, and we feel this will open up the game. We believe this will remove some of the congestion on the way to the basket."
The committee's goal in exploring such a change, according to the NCAA, is based off three objectives:
Making the lane more available for dribble/drive plays from the perimeter.
Slowing the trend of the 3-point shot becoming too prevalent in men's college basketball by making the shot a bit more challenging, while at the same time keeping the shot an integral part of the game.
Assisting in offensive spacing by requiring the defense to cover more of the court.
In addition to the 3-point proposal, by far the biggest potential shift (which could be put into place as soon as the 2020-2021 season), the committee is also recommending a new shot clock reset "to enhance the pace of the game." Other proposals include the recommended use of instant replay during the last two minutes of the second half or the last two minutes of any overtime; the allowance for coaches to call live-ball timeouts in the last two minutes of the second half or of any overtime; and the recommendation that players be assessed a Flagrant 2 technical foul and ejection if they use derogatory language aimed at an opponent regarding race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or disability.
The committee's proposals will be considered and voted on by the Playing Rules Oversight Panel on June 5.The rules would go into effect for the 2019-2020 season in Division I.

 

[ModebaSan]

In my opinion, this will hurt the Hawkeyes. Lower our 3-pt. FG pct., force our players to defend the driving lanes, and force us to drive the lanes more ourselves. Two of the three we really suck at.

 

[Tierney]

It would probably force the Iowa coaches to focus on interior defense, and recruit more athletic guards.

 

[ModebaSan]

It would probably force the Iowa coaches to focus on interior defense, and recruit more athletic guards.

Yep, half court offense and defense would have to be at another level.

 

[WindsorHawk]

In my opinion, this will hurt the Hawkeyes. Lower our 3-pt. FG pct., force our players to defend the driving lanes, and force us to drive the lanes more ourselves. Two of the three we really suck at.

I disagree. We continue to play zone forcing perimeter shots. It is now harder our for opponents to make threes.

 

[trj]

I am not sure you are going to slow down the the trend of shooting 3(s). That's just how the game is played now outside-in.

 

[ModebaSan]

I disagree. We continue to play zone forcing perimeter shots. It is now harder our for opponents to make threes.

But you should already know,
that Fran will still try to play some man to man. Personally, I would like to see him try some box and 1 defense or some form of the amoeba defense to give them different looks.

 

[ModebaSan]

I am not sure you are going to slow down the the trend of shooting 3(s). That's just how the game is played now outside-in.

No, it won’t slow down the 3-pt. game, it will just lower the made percentage. For us just as well as them.

 

[WindsorHawk]

But you should already know,
that Fran will still try to play some man to man. Personally, I would like to see him try some box and 1 defense or some form of the amoeba defense to give them different looks.

You’re right. I keep hoping he will abandon the idea that man is mandatory to start the game. And I also would like to see box and one and triangle and 2. Accept our identity and coach to it. Syracuse plays zone all the time.

 

[trj]

No, it won’t slow down the 3-pt. game, it will just lower the made percentage. For us just as well as them.

Iowa allowed their opponent to shoot 32.4% from 3 this year. 68th in the nation which would make them above average. 2 years ago they allowed their opponents to shoot 37.6% from 3 which was 307th in the country and just flat out hot garbage. Imo, moving the line out a foot doesn't really change anything.

 

[ModebaSan]

By expanding the 3 pt. line, you are also creating more spacing by the offense. Question is, do we still expand the zone defense to defend against the three pt. shot or do we play our normal zone? If we attempt going out farther to defend the three, doesn’t it make it easier for the opponent to dribble/drive against us, or do we pack it in and just let them chuck it up and hope that they will make a lower pct. of those shots? There are some guys like JBo out there that can make those shots. I think what might happen is that more teams are gonna play more man to man defense than zone and the athletic teams will dominate. The B1G conference will take a big hit when it comes to tournament time. We are a physical league, but it looks like it’s going to be an advantage to finesse type teams down the road. Jmho.

 

[Fryowa]

I am not sure you are going to slow down the the trend of shooting 3(s). That's just how the game is played now outside-in.

The vast majority of threes are taken beyond where the new line would be anyway. It may slightly tweak some shooting percentages but it’s not going to affect the way the game is played overall.

 

[Fryowa]

The only rules changes that would be worth a shit and actually mean something would be pace of play rules.

Fouling at the ends of games should be punishable by 5 years in prison without the possibility of parole. Stupidest goddam thing in college sports, and it has never, ever, in the history of organized basketball worked. Yet teams still feel the need to make the last 2:00 take 35:00. And we obviously know that there are a ton of dickhead coaches out there who do it just to be assholes even when they’re down by 10.

It would take one extremely simple rule to completely eliminate it and cut close games down by a half hour...

Add a rule stating that if a team is in the bonus and up by more than 4 points with 2:00 or less to go, any defensive foul results in the free throws AND the fouled team gets the ball back. Problem solved.

Also while we’re at it, no stepping away from the foul line between free throws to get high fives from your buddies. Baseball did away from batters stepping out between pitches, basketball can too.

Lastly, chewing on your mouth guard on tv like a goddamned one year old during play stoppages should result in a calendar year of lost eligibility. Yes, I’m looking at you Bohannon. You’re not Steph Curry, and we don’t want to see your oral fixation. Put that fucking thing in your mouth and leave it there, or put it in your pocket.

 

[Northside Hawk]

No way is one extra foot going to deter players who have no problem dialing it up from 25-30 feet. The game has completely changed in thirty years, especially the last ten to fifteen.

Indiana won the national championship min 1987, the year the three point line was implemented across the board in the NCAA. Indiana, as a team, attempted a total of 256 for the season and Steve Alford attempted 202 of them by himself. Now individual players attempt what entire teams used to. And it may be worse in the NBA where it's not unusual, even common, for teams to attempt more three points shots than twos.

Look at a teams shot chart sometimes, college pro. You will see a wide gap in the mid-range. Those shots aren't taken anymore. At any given moment at least eight of the ten players on the floor are three point threats. Drive and kick has become a go play. Players don't fill the lanes on the fast break anymore-they fan out to the three point line.

Watch any middle school or high school team warm up. Guess where they're shooting from? The three point line is here for good and it's still changing the way the game is played. Moving the line back a foot may slightly lower shooting percentages, but will change little else. If anything, with the machismo of players today, it may challenge them to attempt more. Ang get ready for the four point line. It's coming!

 

[Northside Hawk]

The only rules changes that would be worth a shit and actually mean something would be pace of play rules.

Fouling at the ends of games should be punishable by 5 years in prison without the possibility of parole. Stupidest goddam thing in college sports, and it has never, ever, in the history of organized basketball worked. Yet teams still feel the need to make the last 2:00 take 35:00. And we obviously know that there are a ton of dickhead coaches out there who do it just to be assholes even when they’re down by 10.

It would take one extremely simple rule to completely eliminate it and cut close games down by a half hour...

Add a rule stating that if a team is in the bonus and up by more than 4 points with 2:00 or less to go, any defensive foul results in the free throws AND the fouled team gets the ball back. Problem solved.

Also while we’re at it, no stepping away from the foul line between free throws to get high fives from your buddies. Baseball did away from batters stepping out between pitches, basketball can too.

Lastly, chewing on your mouth guard on tv like a goddamned one year old during play stoppages should result in a calendar year of lost eligibility. Yes, I’m looking at you Bohannon. You’re not Steph Curry, and we don’t want to see your oral fixation. Put that fucking thing in your mouth and leave it there, or put it in your pocket.

Jim Valvano was one of the last coaches to take advantage of fouling when he made his miracle 1983 championship run with NC State. The double bonus rule was put in shortly thereafter, ending endless one and ones.

I love your rule proposition. Make the trailing team earn possession by forcing a turnover. Let the team that earned the lead protect it by playing their best defensive players late in the game.

I've always wondered if there's a stat for free throw % on the front end of a bonus. It has to be at least 10% lower than the overall percentage for most free throw shooters.

 

[Robowe]

The only rules changes that would be worth a shit and actually mean something would be pace of play rules.

Fouling at the ends of games should be punishable by 5 years in prison without the possibility of parole. Stupidest goddam thing in college sports, and it has never, ever, in the history of organized basketball worked. Yet teams still feel the need to make the last 2:00 take 35:00. And we obviously know that there are a ton of dickhead coaches out there who do it just to be assholes even when they’re down by 10.

It would take one extremely simple rule to completely eliminate it and cut close games down by a half hour...

Add a rule stating that if a team is in the bonus and up by more than 4 points with 2:00 or less to go, any defensive foul results in the free throws AND the fouled team gets the ball back. Problem solved.

Also while we’re at it, no stepping away from the foul line between free throws to get high fives from your buddies. Baseball did away from batters stepping out between pitches, basketball can too.

Lastly, chewing on your mouth guard on tv like a goddamned one year old during play stoppages should result in a calendar year of lost eligibility. Yes, I’m looking at you Bohannon. You’re not Steph Curry, and we don’t want to see your oral fixation. Put that fucking thing in your mouth and leave it there, or put it in your pocket.

Overall, I agree with your idea how teams fouling at the end of games rarely win. However, we just saw it work (Iowa at Nebraska). Iowa led 70-61 with 2:36 left. Nebby committed 5 fouls in order to get the ball back (and make 3s). Iowa missed one FT while getting fouled, and Nebby still caught up and won in OT.

If they made the rule teams down more than 10 with 2 minutes to go, I concur.

 

[Fryowa]

Overall, I agree with your idea how teams fouling at the end of games rarely win. However, we just saw it work (Iowa at Nebraska). Iowa led 70-61 with 2:36 left. Nebby committed 5 fouls in order to get the ball back (and make 3s). Iowa missed one FT while getting fouled, and Nebby still caught up and won in OT.

If they made the rule teams down more than 10 with 2 minutes to go, I concur.

My response would be that the probably .001% of games where something like that happens don’t justify the 99.999% taking a half hour to play the last two minutes. Make the rule change for the good of the game as a whole, and as long as everyone is playing by the same rules it’s fair. Icing in hockey and offsides in soccer worked well before they were made against the rules (actually much better than fouling in basketball), but they still were bad for the games as a whole and they got rid of it. I guess I don’t see Mike Krzyeskewscryziskcwki bitching after losing the NCAA final and saying, “That was unfair because we were down by 4 with 1:55 left and we couldn’t foul...” My answer would be that the rule applies to the other team as well, and you shouldn’t get yourself down by 4 at the end of a game if you want to win.

 

[Robowe]

My response would be that the probably .001% of games where something like that happens don’t justify the 99.999% taking a half hour to play the last two minutes. Make the rule change for the good of the game as a whole, and as long as everyone is playing by the same rules it’s fair. Icing in hockey and offsides in soccer worked well before they were made against the rules (actually much better than fouling in basketball), but they still were bad for the games as a whole and they got rid of it. I guess I don’t see Mike Krzyeskewscryziskcwki bitching after losing the NCAA final and saying, “That was unfair because we were down by 4 with 1:55 left and we couldn’t foul...” My answer would be that the rule applies to the other team as well, and you shouldn’t get yourself down by 4 at the end of a game if you want to win.

I get it. However, if you change it where there is something like a rule where fouling under two minutes is different than the rest of the game, teams will actually start fouling earlier if they feel that is the way to come back. Down 6 with 4 minutes to go, better start fouling now.

 

[Fryowa]

I get it. However, if you change it where there is something like a rule where fouling under two minutes is different than the rest of the game, teams will actually start fouling earlier if they feel that is the way to come back. Down 6 with 4 minutes to go, better start fouling now.

I don’t think it would go down that way necessarily. If that happened then you’d have players playing a lot longer with fewer fouls to give. You won’t have bench players out there doing the hacking because there’s too much time left, and coaches are smart enough to know that fouling works once in a decade.

Say Garza and Wieskamp both had 3 fouls with 5:00 left. I don’t see a coach telling them to give up another one because the chances of them fouling out unintentionally in that last 5:00 is pretty high. Certainly better odds than intentional fouling working to win a game. And you don’t send Michael Baer and Riley Till out there to do it because there’s too much time left for guys like that to get blown up and the game really get out of hand.

Different ways to look at it I guess, but to me it’s just basketball’s version of icing. It’s a stalling tactic that 1) effectively never works, and 2) has become a part of the game’s culture where coaches stretch out games that they know they have zero chance of winning.

 

[Robowe]

I don’t think it would go down that way necessarily. If that happened then you’d have players playing a lot longer with fewer fouls to give. You won’t have bench players out there doing the hacking because there’s too much time left, and coaches are smart enough to know that fouling works once in a decade.

Say Garza and Wieskamp both had 3 fouls with 5:00 left. I don’t see a coach telling them to give up another one because the chances of them fouling out unintentionally in that last 5:00 is pretty high. Certainly better odds than intentional fouling working to win a game. And you don’t send Michael Baer and Riley Till out there to do it because there’s too much time left for guys like that to get blown up and the game really get out of hand.

Different ways to look at it I guess, but to me it’s just basketball’s version of icing. It’s a stalling tactic that 1) effectively never works, and 2) has become a part of the game’s culture where coaches stretch out games that they know they have zero chance of winning.

I agree with you ... mostly. I don't think much will change because coaches would rather foul and put it on the other team to make FTs than their own team getting stops.